comment by Ashtonianblue (U12469)
posted 2 minutes ago
My final word on this is that the The tribunal found -
1. that it was only right and proper that the PL should implement rules regarding the financial governance of the clubs to ensure fair competition within the PL.
2. the rules that the PL came up with and implemented were unlawful.
End of.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet found the majority in favour of the PL and only two changes required back up City's complaint.
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Ashtonianblue (U12469)
posted 2 minutes ago
My final word on this is that the The tribunal found -
1. that it was only right and proper that the PL should implement rules regarding the financial governance of the clubs to ensure fair competition within the PL.
2. the rules that the PL came up with and implemented were unlawful.
End of.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet found the majority in favour of the PL and only two changes required back up City's complaint.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How does that differ from what I've written?
comment by Ashtonianblue (U12469)
posted 7 seconds ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Ashtonianblue (U12469)
posted 2 minutes ago
My final word on this is that the The tribunal found -
1. that it was only right and proper that the PL should implement rules regarding the financial governance of the clubs to ensure fair competition within the PL.
2. the rules that the PL came up with and implemented were unlawful.
End of.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet found the majority in favour of the PL and only two changes required back up City's complaint.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How does that differ from what I've written?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your claim the rules the PL implemented (implying all of) were unfair is inaccurate. The majority of the rules were found to be fair with only two specific instances being changed.
It's like winning two rounds of a 12 round boxing match but claiming to have won the bout.
comment by mancWoohoo- maximus mardius cob-onius (U10676)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Mamba - You hit us, We hit you. (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
If the rules were unlawful, they would have said that in their decision without hesitation. The fact that they didn't should tell you everything you need to know.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s literally in the first sentence of the decision!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.mancity.com/meta/media/wzmfdwtn/partial-final-award-p-164-redacted.pdf
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As you can see from the PLs response, and if you could read legalese, this doesn't mean the entire framework of the rules is unlawful. According to media reports the tribunal had good things to say about the overall framework of the rules themselves, no?
My point is that the rules were not struck off and there's room left to debate the consequences. There is no finality there, allowing both sides to claim victory. This ruling doesn't seem to carry the effect or gravity that City wanted. It's not emphatic to say the least. Unless they reach a compromise with the PL, City will still have to litigate further to get that declaration, which will not happen as the decision seems to recognise and accept that such rules are required. Their issue is that such rules must comply with The Competition Act.
To use your boxing analogy, you're merely point scoring when I haven't claimed anything regarding winning.
comment by Ashtonianblue (U12469)
posted 15 seconds ago
To use your boxing analogy, you're merely point scoring when I haven't claimed anything regarding winning.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"2. the rules that the PL came up with and implemented were unlawful."
The tribunal didn't find this though. They found in City's favour on two counts but found the PL rules fair in the majority. Your statement is inaccurate.
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 58 minutes ago
comment by Ashtonianblue (U12469)
posted 15 seconds ago
To use your boxing analogy, you're merely point scoring when I haven't claimed anything regarding winning.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"2. the rules that the PL came up with and implemented were unlawful."
The tribunal didn't find this though. They found in City's favour on two counts but found the PL rules fair in the majority. Your statement is inaccurate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Think you’re having a semantic argument but his statement is legally correct. The APT rules are unlawful currently. Doesn’t matter if the majority are fair if one or two components aren’t, it makes the set of rules unlawful.
That’s why the judgment says the apt rules are unlawful due to x and for reason only rather than this specific rule is unlawful. Currently they’re deemed to be in breach of the competition act and procedurally unfair.
To be fair, and I have no real opinion, or expertise on this whole situation the 2 rules that City got proved on seem to have been the one's they most wanted changed?
Unless, as per, I'm missing something completely?
"Doesn’t matter if the majority are fair if one or two components aren’t, it makes the set of rules unlawful."
So how many rules are being changed as a result if the whole set of rules are unlawful?
Think you’re having a semantic argument but his statement is legally correct. The APT rules are unlawful currently. Doesn’t matter if the majority are fair if one or two components aren’t, it makes the set of rules unlawful.
=====
No it doesn't. The rules that are not unlawful will remain in place. Those couple or so found to be unlawful will be removed or replaced with better wording.
This decision is more an order to amend the APT rules than an order to bin them.
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 14 minutes ago
"Doesn’t matter if the majority are fair if one or two components aren’t, it makes the set of rules unlawful."
So how many rules are being changed as a result if the whole set of rules are unlawful?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s not the relevant question, it’s how many of the rules currently can’t be enforced until they change the ones they need to.
comment by Mamba - You hit us, We hit you. (U1282)
posted 14 minutes ago
Think you’re having a semantic argument but his statement is legally correct. The APT rules are unlawful currently. Doesn’t matter if the majority are fair if one or two components aren’t, it makes the set of rules unlawful.
=====
No it doesn't. The rules that are not unlawful will remain in place. Those couple or so found to be unlawful will be removed or replaced with better wording.
This decision is more an order to amend the APT rules than an order to bin them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There wouldn’t be an order to bin them! Why do you think the PL are having an emergency meeting about it? Even though they’re apparently appallingly awful at being a regulator, even they wouldn’t be stupid enough to continue processing APTs until they make the rules lawful.
comment by Mamba - You hit us, We hit you. (U1282)
posted 23 minutes ago
Think you’re having a semantic argument but his statement is legally correct. The APT rules are unlawful currently. Doesn’t matter if the majority are fair if one or two components aren’t, it makes the set of rules unlawful.
=====
No it doesn't. The rules that are not unlawful will remain in place. Those couple or so found to be unlawful will be removed or replaced with better wording.
This decision is more an order to amend the APT rules than an order to bin them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well done Mamba. I knew at some point you will catch up.
See below from 4 months ago.
==========================
comment by mancWoohoo- maximus mardius cob-onius (U10676)
posted on 6/6/24
comment by #4zA (U22472)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by mancWoohoo- maximus mardius cob-onius (U10676)
posted 19 minutes ago
In this forum:
"it doesn't matter, nobody cares about City. Nobody will recognise them as Champions"
Also in this forum:
10 separate articles about City since yesterday, full of comments the majority of which came from users who spoke out about how much they didn't care about City, and how it's boring that City came out as Champions in 6 of the last 7 seasons.
Also in this forum:
"if City are innocent, why isn't City doing something about it"
... City does something about it....
"WTF? This PROVES they're gUiltY!!!"
I love this place.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Butt I thort the 2 cases r COMPLEATLY separate?
AAAMMMIIIRRRIIIITTTEEE?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes you are right. Which is why I love how some people conflated this.
You are the first person I have seen that understood that the hearing is to test the PL rule against the law of the land. If it is within the law, then we carry on. If not, then the PL should change it to adhere to the law.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Mamba - You hit us, We hit you. (U1282)
posted 14 minutes ago
Think you’re having a semantic argument but his statement is legally correct. The APT rules are unlawful currently. Doesn’t matter if the majority are fair if one or two components aren’t, it makes the set of rules unlawful.
=====
No it doesn't. The rules that are not unlawful will remain in place. Those couple or so found to be unlawful will be removed or replaced with better wording.
This decision is more an order to amend the APT rules than an order to bin them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There wouldn’t be an order to bin them! Why do you think the PL are having an emergency meeting about it? Even though they’re apparently appallingly awful at being a regulator, even they wouldn’t be stupid enough to continue processing APTs until they make the rules lawful.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where did the tribunal recommend a change to all the rules? They haven't as far as I've seen.
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 2 hours, 42 minutes ago
comment by Ashtonianblue (U12469)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Mamba - You hit us, We hit you. (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
If the rules were unlawful, they would have said that in their decision without hesitation. The fact that they didn't should tell you everything you need to know.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s literally in the first sentence of the decision!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Welcome to the Post-Truth world. Make it up, stick it on social media and the muppets will believe it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 10 minutes ago
Mamba all for a bit of discrimination against clubs with Middle Eastern owners
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the tribunal finding no evidence of this
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was one of the major findings of the tribunal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"The league also said the tribunal had "rejected Manchester City's argument that the object of the APT rules was to discriminate against clubs with ownership from the Gulf region".
Yep, I give you Boris as an example of this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Evidence given by an employee of the PL coupled with email evidence categorically confirmed the league would persue discriminatory actions against clubs with owners from the Gulf after the Newcastle takeover
How much proof do you want?
How much proof do you want?
Meanwhile the tribunal found;
"It is also worth pointing out the tribunal ruled there was no discrimination in these rules against clubs from the “Gulf region”. This was an absurd claim that everyone involved should, frankly, be ashamed to have made in the first place. Rational, blanket economic rules can be argued over, tweaked or abandoned. But to call them racially motivated is to demean the victims of actual racism."
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 31 minutes ago
Meanwhile the tribunal found;
"It is also worth pointing out the tribunal ruled there was no discrimination in these rules against clubs from the “Gulf region”. This was an absurd claim that everyone involved should, frankly, be ashamed to have made in the first place. Rational, blanket economic rules can be argued over, tweaked or abandoned. But to call them racially motivated is to demean the victims of actual racism."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 hour, 20 minutes ago
comment by Mamba - You hit us, We hit you. (U1282)
posted 14 minutes ago
Think you’re having a semantic argument but his statement is legally correct. The APT rules are unlawful currently. Doesn’t matter if the majority are fair if one or two components aren’t, it makes the set of rules unlawful.
=====
No it doesn't. The rules that are not unlawful will remain in place. Those couple or so found to be unlawful will be removed or replaced with better wording.
This decision is more an order to amend the APT rules than an order to bin them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There wouldn’t be an order to bin them! Why do you think the PL are having an emergency meeting about it? Even though they’re apparently appallingly awful at being a regulator, even they wouldn’t be stupid enough to continue processing APTs until they make the rules lawful.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They're having an emergency meeting because a couple of their rules were found incompatible with the competition act. Why else would they be having an emergency meeting?
And of course they must comply with the decision before enforcing APT. That's why they're having an emergency meeting next week, to hash out a plan for how that will happen.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 hour, 28 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 14 minutes ago
"Doesn’t matter if the majority are fair if one or two components aren’t, it makes the set of rules unlawful."
So how many rules are being changed as a result if the whole set of rules are unlawful?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s not the relevant question, it’s how many of the rules currently can’t be enforced until they change the ones they need to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why are you talking like that's gonna be a problem?
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 27 minutes ago
Who are you quoting?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Barney Roynay from.the Guardian. Same quote, the tribunal ruled "there was no discrimination in these rules against clubs from the “Gulf region” in the BBC and everywhere else I've read.
Who are you quoting?
https://x.com/nickdemarco_/status/1843334109122134278?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
"...the case represents another example of the increasing tendency of courts and tribunals to hold sports regulators to closer scrutiny than has previously been the case..."
"...In addition, some of MCFC’s ‘wins’ in the APT case were based on English public law principles of procedural fairness..."
In my opinion, Richard Masters is in deep poo. His competencies in the role is not fit for purpose.
What it is about this news that you're all excited by?
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 3 hours, 49 minutes ago
comment by Ashtonianblue (U12469)
posted 2 minutes ago
My final word on this is that the The tribunal found -
1. that it was only right and proper that the PL should implement rules regarding the financial governance of the clubs to ensure fair competition within the PL.
2. the rules that the PL came up with and implemented were unlawful.
End of.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet found the majority in favour of the PL and only two changes required back up City's complaint.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Am I right in thinking that the 2 that were ruled in Citys favour don't really have anything to do with City in terms of the implementation of the rules? It's just that they're the ones going scorched earth on the PL.
Sign in if you want to comment
City win APT case
Page 8 of 16
9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13
posted on 8/10/24
comment by Ashtonianblue (U12469)
posted 2 minutes ago
My final word on this is that the The tribunal found -
1. that it was only right and proper that the PL should implement rules regarding the financial governance of the clubs to ensure fair competition within the PL.
2. the rules that the PL came up with and implemented were unlawful.
End of.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet found the majority in favour of the PL and only two changes required back up City's complaint.
posted on 8/10/24
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Ashtonianblue (U12469)
posted 2 minutes ago
My final word on this is that the The tribunal found -
1. that it was only right and proper that the PL should implement rules regarding the financial governance of the clubs to ensure fair competition within the PL.
2. the rules that the PL came up with and implemented were unlawful.
End of.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet found the majority in favour of the PL and only two changes required back up City's complaint.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How does that differ from what I've written?
posted on 8/10/24
comment by Ashtonianblue (U12469)
posted 7 seconds ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Ashtonianblue (U12469)
posted 2 minutes ago
My final word on this is that the The tribunal found -
1. that it was only right and proper that the PL should implement rules regarding the financial governance of the clubs to ensure fair competition within the PL.
2. the rules that the PL came up with and implemented were unlawful.
End of.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet found the majority in favour of the PL and only two changes required back up City's complaint.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How does that differ from what I've written?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your claim the rules the PL implemented (implying all of) were unfair is inaccurate. The majority of the rules were found to be fair with only two specific instances being changed.
It's like winning two rounds of a 12 round boxing match but claiming to have won the bout.
posted on 8/10/24
comment by mancWoohoo- maximus mardius cob-onius (U10676)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Mamba - You hit us, We hit you. (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
If the rules were unlawful, they would have said that in their decision without hesitation. The fact that they didn't should tell you everything you need to know.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s literally in the first sentence of the decision!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.mancity.com/meta/media/wzmfdwtn/partial-final-award-p-164-redacted.pdf
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As you can see from the PLs response, and if you could read legalese, this doesn't mean the entire framework of the rules is unlawful. According to media reports the tribunal had good things to say about the overall framework of the rules themselves, no?
My point is that the rules were not struck off and there's room left to debate the consequences. There is no finality there, allowing both sides to claim victory. This ruling doesn't seem to carry the effect or gravity that City wanted. It's not emphatic to say the least. Unless they reach a compromise with the PL, City will still have to litigate further to get that declaration, which will not happen as the decision seems to recognise and accept that such rules are required. Their issue is that such rules must comply with The Competition Act.
posted on 8/10/24
To use your boxing analogy, you're merely point scoring when I haven't claimed anything regarding winning.
posted on 8/10/24
comment by Ashtonianblue (U12469)
posted 15 seconds ago
To use your boxing analogy, you're merely point scoring when I haven't claimed anything regarding winning.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"2. the rules that the PL came up with and implemented were unlawful."
The tribunal didn't find this though. They found in City's favour on two counts but found the PL rules fair in the majority. Your statement is inaccurate.
posted on 8/10/24
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 58 minutes ago
comment by Ashtonianblue (U12469)
posted 15 seconds ago
To use your boxing analogy, you're merely point scoring when I haven't claimed anything regarding winning.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"2. the rules that the PL came up with and implemented were unlawful."
The tribunal didn't find this though. They found in City's favour on two counts but found the PL rules fair in the majority. Your statement is inaccurate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Think you’re having a semantic argument but his statement is legally correct. The APT rules are unlawful currently. Doesn’t matter if the majority are fair if one or two components aren’t, it makes the set of rules unlawful.
That’s why the judgment says the apt rules are unlawful due to x and for reason only rather than this specific rule is unlawful. Currently they’re deemed to be in breach of the competition act and procedurally unfair.
posted on 8/10/24
To be fair, and I have no real opinion, or expertise on this whole situation the 2 rules that City got proved on seem to have been the one's they most wanted changed?
Unless, as per, I'm missing something completely?
posted on 8/10/24
"Doesn’t matter if the majority are fair if one or two components aren’t, it makes the set of rules unlawful."
So how many rules are being changed as a result if the whole set of rules are unlawful?
posted on 8/10/24
Think you’re having a semantic argument but his statement is legally correct. The APT rules are unlawful currently. Doesn’t matter if the majority are fair if one or two components aren’t, it makes the set of rules unlawful.
=====
No it doesn't. The rules that are not unlawful will remain in place. Those couple or so found to be unlawful will be removed or replaced with better wording.
This decision is more an order to amend the APT rules than an order to bin them.
posted on 8/10/24
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 14 minutes ago
"Doesn’t matter if the majority are fair if one or two components aren’t, it makes the set of rules unlawful."
So how many rules are being changed as a result if the whole set of rules are unlawful?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s not the relevant question, it’s how many of the rules currently can’t be enforced until they change the ones they need to.
posted on 8/10/24
comment by Mamba - You hit us, We hit you. (U1282)
posted 14 minutes ago
Think you’re having a semantic argument but his statement is legally correct. The APT rules are unlawful currently. Doesn’t matter if the majority are fair if one or two components aren’t, it makes the set of rules unlawful.
=====
No it doesn't. The rules that are not unlawful will remain in place. Those couple or so found to be unlawful will be removed or replaced with better wording.
This decision is more an order to amend the APT rules than an order to bin them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There wouldn’t be an order to bin them! Why do you think the PL are having an emergency meeting about it? Even though they’re apparently appallingly awful at being a regulator, even they wouldn’t be stupid enough to continue processing APTs until they make the rules lawful.
posted on 8/10/24
comment by Mamba - You hit us, We hit you. (U1282)
posted 23 minutes ago
Think you’re having a semantic argument but his statement is legally correct. The APT rules are unlawful currently. Doesn’t matter if the majority are fair if one or two components aren’t, it makes the set of rules unlawful.
=====
No it doesn't. The rules that are not unlawful will remain in place. Those couple or so found to be unlawful will be removed or replaced with better wording.
This decision is more an order to amend the APT rules than an order to bin them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well done Mamba. I knew at some point you will catch up.
See below from 4 months ago.
==========================
comment by mancWoohoo- maximus mardius cob-onius (U10676)
posted on 6/6/24
comment by #4zA (U22472)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by mancWoohoo- maximus mardius cob-onius (U10676)
posted 19 minutes ago
In this forum:
"it doesn't matter, nobody cares about City. Nobody will recognise them as Champions"
Also in this forum:
10 separate articles about City since yesterday, full of comments the majority of which came from users who spoke out about how much they didn't care about City, and how it's boring that City came out as Champions in 6 of the last 7 seasons.
Also in this forum:
"if City are innocent, why isn't City doing something about it"
... City does something about it....
"WTF? This PROVES they're gUiltY!!!"
I love this place.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Butt I thort the 2 cases r COMPLEATLY separate?
AAAMMMIIIRRRIIIITTTEEE?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes you are right. Which is why I love how some people conflated this.
You are the first person I have seen that understood that the hearing is to test the PL rule against the law of the land. If it is within the law, then we carry on. If not, then the PL should change it to adhere to the law.
posted on 8/10/24
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Mamba - You hit us, We hit you. (U1282)
posted 14 minutes ago
Think you’re having a semantic argument but his statement is legally correct. The APT rules are unlawful currently. Doesn’t matter if the majority are fair if one or two components aren’t, it makes the set of rules unlawful.
=====
No it doesn't. The rules that are not unlawful will remain in place. Those couple or so found to be unlawful will be removed or replaced with better wording.
This decision is more an order to amend the APT rules than an order to bin them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There wouldn’t be an order to bin them! Why do you think the PL are having an emergency meeting about it? Even though they’re apparently appallingly awful at being a regulator, even they wouldn’t be stupid enough to continue processing APTs until they make the rules lawful.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where did the tribunal recommend a change to all the rules? They haven't as far as I've seen.
posted on 8/10/24
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 2 hours, 42 minutes ago
comment by Ashtonianblue (U12469)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Mamba - You hit us, We hit you. (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
If the rules were unlawful, they would have said that in their decision without hesitation. The fact that they didn't should tell you everything you need to know.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s literally in the first sentence of the decision!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Welcome to the Post-Truth world. Make it up, stick it on social media and the muppets will believe it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 10 minutes ago
Mamba all for a bit of discrimination against clubs with Middle Eastern owners
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the tribunal finding no evidence of this
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was one of the major findings of the tribunal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"The league also said the tribunal had "rejected Manchester City's argument that the object of the APT rules was to discriminate against clubs with ownership from the Gulf region".
Yep, I give you Boris as an example of this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Evidence given by an employee of the PL coupled with email evidence categorically confirmed the league would persue discriminatory actions against clubs with owners from the Gulf after the Newcastle takeover
How much proof do you want?
How much proof do you want?
posted on 8/10/24
Thats knot proof
posted on 8/10/24
Meanwhile the tribunal found;
"It is also worth pointing out the tribunal ruled there was no discrimination in these rules against clubs from the “Gulf region”. This was an absurd claim that everyone involved should, frankly, be ashamed to have made in the first place. Rational, blanket economic rules can be argued over, tweaked or abandoned. But to call them racially motivated is to demean the victims of actual racism."
posted on 8/10/24
Who are you quoting?
posted on 8/10/24
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 31 minutes ago
Meanwhile the tribunal found;
"It is also worth pointing out the tribunal ruled there was no discrimination in these rules against clubs from the “Gulf region”. This was an absurd claim that everyone involved should, frankly, be ashamed to have made in the first place. Rational, blanket economic rules can be argued over, tweaked or abandoned. But to call them racially motivated is to demean the victims of actual racism."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 8/10/24
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 hour, 20 minutes ago
comment by Mamba - You hit us, We hit you. (U1282)
posted 14 minutes ago
Think you’re having a semantic argument but his statement is legally correct. The APT rules are unlawful currently. Doesn’t matter if the majority are fair if one or two components aren’t, it makes the set of rules unlawful.
=====
No it doesn't. The rules that are not unlawful will remain in place. Those couple or so found to be unlawful will be removed or replaced with better wording.
This decision is more an order to amend the APT rules than an order to bin them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There wouldn’t be an order to bin them! Why do you think the PL are having an emergency meeting about it? Even though they’re apparently appallingly awful at being a regulator, even they wouldn’t be stupid enough to continue processing APTs until they make the rules lawful.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They're having an emergency meeting because a couple of their rules were found incompatible with the competition act. Why else would they be having an emergency meeting?
And of course they must comply with the decision before enforcing APT. That's why they're having an emergency meeting next week, to hash out a plan for how that will happen.
posted on 8/10/24
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 hour, 28 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 14 minutes ago
"Doesn’t matter if the majority are fair if one or two components aren’t, it makes the set of rules unlawful."
So how many rules are being changed as a result if the whole set of rules are unlawful?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s not the relevant question, it’s how many of the rules currently can’t be enforced until they change the ones they need to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why are you talking like that's gonna be a problem?
posted on 8/10/24
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 27 minutes ago
Who are you quoting?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Barney Roynay from.the Guardian. Same quote, the tribunal ruled "there was no discrimination in these rules against clubs from the “Gulf region” in the BBC and everywhere else I've read.
Who are you quoting?
posted on 8/10/24
https://x.com/nickdemarco_/status/1843334109122134278?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
"...the case represents another example of the increasing tendency of courts and tribunals to hold sports regulators to closer scrutiny than has previously been the case..."
"...In addition, some of MCFC’s ‘wins’ in the APT case were based on English public law principles of procedural fairness..."
In my opinion, Richard Masters is in deep poo. His competencies in the role is not fit for purpose.
posted on 8/10/24
What it is about this news that you're all excited by?
posted on 8/10/24
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 3 hours, 49 minutes ago
comment by Ashtonianblue (U12469)
posted 2 minutes ago
My final word on this is that the The tribunal found -
1. that it was only right and proper that the PL should implement rules regarding the financial governance of the clubs to ensure fair competition within the PL.
2. the rules that the PL came up with and implemented were unlawful.
End of.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet found the majority in favour of the PL and only two changes required back up City's complaint.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Am I right in thinking that the 2 that were ruled in Citys favour don't really have anything to do with City in terms of the implementation of the rules? It's just that they're the ones going scorched earth on the PL.
Page 8 of 16
9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13